Re: Ada Stuff and some confusion

["Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com>]

1: Good luck with your web page. (You ought to post the URL). One thing to
attempt to do with your programming examples is to keep them as simple and
focused as possible. Try to illustrate only one thing at a time - although
sometimes it is not easy to do. Keep the illustrations as a single,
compilable, executable main program wherever possible. You want your
audience to see how a specific feature is used & be able to play around with
it by making their own modifications & recompiling, etc.

2: Declaration vs Definition: From the ARM, apendix N:

Definition. All declarations contain a definition for a view of an entity. A
view consists of an identification of the entity (the entity of the view),
plus view-specific characteristics that affect the use of the entity through
that view (such as mode of access to an object, formal parameter names and
defaults for a subprogram, or visibility to components of a type). In most
cases, a declaration also contains the definition for the entity itself (a
renaming_declaration is an example of a declaration that does not define a
new entity, but instead defines a view of an existing entity, See section
8.5 Renaming Declarations.

In other words, a Definition lays out what a thing looks like - a
Declaration is what actually makes the thing come into existance. (Sort of
like the difference between saying "Light: a particle/wave that moves at
186000mps..." and "Let There Be Light!")

GNAT/GPL: You really need a lawyer for this one - otherwise someone could
get accused of dispensing legal advice without a license. :-) Basically,
there are a few things which should be pretty clear: First, you can use GNAT
to develop proprietary software if you like. There's nothing in the license
to stop you from building software of any sort to be used under any
conditions you like. So you don't have to GPL or LGPL anything if you don't
want to.

As for the rest - you really need to consult a lawyer about what is legally
binding, etc. You can ditch the GPL and use anything you like. Just be
advised that a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. :-)

Just an observation: Hypothetically speaking, if one were to put source code
out on the Internet & put extremely severe restrictions on it (Like "I give
you absolutely no permission whatsoever to use this software or even to look
at it!!!"), you would probably be able to count on a few things: First,
people will take it and use it anyway. (Hmmmmm... Someone violating
copyright restrictions on the Internet? What are the odds of *that*
happening???) What? You're going to spend all your time trying to catch
people who took your source code & sue them? You'd probably lose for having
created an "attractive nuisance" or something like that. Besides there isn't
likely to be any money in it. Second: If someone *were* to use your software
and - hard as it may be to believe - there was a bug in it that caused their
weapon system to explode or something equally as disasterous, would they be
able to sue you for having expressed or implied some kind of warranty or
fitness for a given purpose? They'd have to first admit to having stolen
your code & used it without your consent. If I were the judge, that would be
cause for having them (and their lawyers) spanked publically in my court for
extreme stupidity.

Now if you really *want* to have people take some major system you wrote &
utilize it, then probably GPL/LGPL or some similar license is necessary.
(Are you going to build "Ada-ix" - The Great American Operating System?
Cool!) In that case, you could either a) get a lawyer to 'splain it up to
you or b) just do what all the other guys did and rest asured that if you
get in trouble for it, you won't be the only one.

Hope this helps.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"chris.danx" <chris.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nh0z6.4622$%W5.458504@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Hi,
>     I am writing some Ada examples for my new web page.  It will consist
of
> a few examples of things I've found difficult in the past and which a lot
of
> people in this group have helped me with.  (Thanks to all again).  Things
> like Streams for file IO, modular type usage, exception handling, and tons
> more I've learned from you guys.
>
> Now I need you're help again with a general programming question.  I'm
> confused as to the difference between 'declaration' and 'definition'.  I
> remember reading somewhere that many computer programmers don't know or
> confuse them.  I also don't want to put up inaccurate stuff up on the web,
> and proliferate the wrong definitions and add to the situation.
>
> I also want to know about my Ada sources and licensing.  I use GNAT at the
> minute (I don't expect this to change until I win the lottery, and even
then
> I doubt I'll change.  It's the best compiler I've used, ever!).  My
question
> is to do with GPL.  I don't really understand it.  I think it means that
any
> software I write with it must also be GPL'ed (or LGPL'ed).  Now I have two
> questions about this.  Can I just put a comment in the source, at the top
in
> flashing lights, "this source is licensed under GPL, see license.txt for
> further details" or do I have to include the license in the source.
>
> My second question is can I ditch the license and go with my own.  I don't
> really have a problem with making it GPL'ed, but i do find the license too
> wordy in a technical sense.
>
> What about this?
>
>
> THESE SOURCES ARE PROVIDED AS IS ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE AUTHOR IS
NOT
> RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENCES DIRECTLY OR UNDIRECTLY FROM THE USE OF
THIS
> SOFTWARE.
>
> THE AUTHOR GIVES HIS OR HER PERMISSION THAT THESE SOURCES MAY BE ALTERED
> PROVIDING ALL CHANGES ARE CLEARLY MARKED AND ATTRIBUTED TO THE PERSON WHO
> MADE THOSE CHANGES.  THE AUTHOR OF THOSE CHANGES MUST AGREE TO THIS
LICENSE
> AND SHOULD NOT ALTER THE LICENSE IN ANY WAY.
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT MEANT FOR USE IN A SAFETY CRITICAL SYSTEM OR ANY
SYSTEM
> REQUIRING ASSURANCES OF SOFTWARE RELIABILITY.
>
> IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE CONDITIONS DO NOT USE THIS SOFTWARE.  IF YOU
> VIOLATE ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS THE AUTHOR RESERVES THE RITE TO TAKE
ACTION
> AGAINST YOU IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF YOUR COUNTRY SHOULD THE AUTHORS
> NAME BE BROUGHT INTO DISREPUTE THROUGH YOUR ACTIONS.
>
> THE AUTHOR DISTRIBUTES THESE SOURCES IN THE HOPE THEY MAY BE USEFUL.
>
>
> This is just off the top of my head.  Sounds GPLish but clearer i think.
> What do you think?  I'm going to have to change it slightly or make a
second
> version for OS writing i think.  Don't know if this would be legally
> binding.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Chris Campbell
>
>